Reflections on the LCWR Assembly

My observations about the LCWR assembly have to begin with my appreciation to the LCWR for allowing the press to cover their assembly. The sisters were very welcoming and gracious, and we members of the media were extended every courtesy. One sister even walked a good distance across the room at Mass to offer me the Sign of Peace, as I was the lone journalist sitting in the press area.

The sisters also seemed very dedicated to working together to formulate their response to the mandate from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith to reform their organization. And many of them appear to be quite convinced that they have developed a new but valid form of religious life and have the authority to do so because they are the people who are living the life.

What strikes me as a veteran journalist who has covered dozens of such meetings is just how different this assembly was from that of other Catholic entities. There were no informational sessions on topics relevant to the Catholic faith. Daily Mass was celebrated every day and was well attended, but that was the only Catholic worship event on the schedule.

The prayer service at 9am each morning had been composed for the assembly. Its content was not worship or praise, but seemed intended to motivate sisters to let go of their opinions and judgments. The prayer services included “table sharing,” meditations on discerning truth, a ritual with a wine glass and generic songs like Invoking Spirit. These prayer services demonstrated for me why the CDF mandate included the requirement that the Liturgy of the Hours should have a “place of priority in LCWR events and programs.”

On Wednesday and Thursday of the assembly, the LCWR provided for the media what were billed as “press conferences,” but really were informational sessions on specific topics: “Contemporary Religious Life,” “Contemplation and Dialogue” and the LCWR’s history and vision for the future. Each day, three sisters who were present or past LCWR leaders or consultants gave a brief presentation and then fielded questions that were supposed to focus only on the topic of the day.

We media were politely frustrated that we couldn’t pry any information out of the sisters about how the decision process was progressing, even by creatively framing our questions. But I did gain some insights into the philosophy of the LCWR and how its members perceive their role in the Church and the world in these sessions.

Speaking on “Contemporary Religious Life,” Sister of Saint Joseph Nancy Conway said apostolic orders of sisters play a different role than priests and bishops, so there is a normal tension between those roles. No order wants to have an unhealthy tension or cause a breach in its relationship with priests and bishops, she said.

Dominican Sister Rebecca Ann Gemma explained that “religious Catholic women are being asked to help set the context in which all people can speak for themselves. In our traditions, we have been more the mediators between the clergy and the body of Christ. What we recognize now is that, in a true sense, we are all united. And so, how then can we enable others to speak with their own voice of where God is in their lives, how God speaks to them, how the Spirit moves them in their day-to-day choices?”

Sister Rebecca Ann told us that when she attended the LCWR board meeting in May, members were shown thousands of letters of support for LCWR from all over the world. She said that those affirmations were wonderful, but most “amazing” was “the solidarity” that the letter writers understood “a tension that came in recognizing the voice of God within themselves and within their life context and how that is put next to regulations, policy, worldviews that may not necessarily speak to them in that context.”

Immaculate Heart of Mary Sister Sandra Schneiders, a theologian and frequent consultant for LCWR, who received the LCWR’s outstanding leadership award at the assembly, was asked in the media session on modern consecrated life if the LCWR has a conflict with the Vatican over some Catholic doctrine. She replied: “If you look at the whole Church, if you look, for example, at statistics of what Catholics hold, you will find that LCWR is not a whole lot different from what Catholics in general hold. Are there conflicts within the Church between some people in authority and most of the Church? Yes. I think that’s pretty clear; you can’t deny that. But it’s not that LCWR is on a bandwagon to do something; we’re probably much more in touch with the people of the Church simply because of where we live and where we work.”

I had the very real sense that some sisters feel that the Church can address problems in the modern world only by reconsidering some of its doctrine. Thus, I developed a better understanding of the Vatican’s concern that the LCWR seems to want to negotiate doctrine.

Attending the LCWR assembly also made clear to me that the LCWR sisters and the Vatican have a divergent ecclesiology and even a different language. One gets the sense that many LCWR sisters feel that the “marginalized people” they so lovingly serve are finding it too difficult to adhere to certain Church doctrines because of the difficult situations in which they find themselves.

So, the gulf between the two parties is wide, and they both need our prayers that God will be with them as this process continues to unfold. I like to think of the beautiful image of the Holy Spirit evoked by the Jesuit poet Gerard Manley Hopkins: “ … the Holy Ghost over the bent world broods with warm breast and with ah! bright wings.”

Comments

My obedience to the Faith would remain even if I was begging in the streets. The remedy of apostasy is not more apostasy.
Yours in Faith, Paul

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 12:30 PM (EST):

I am no longer part of these exchanges. I stand with the sisters and all those who support them. And I will not change my mind.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 11:59 AM (EST):

MiddleMaN,

How would you define unity?

There are thousands of churches with conflicting views and endless division. The only reason we stand united is because of the very things the LCWR opposes such as placing the correct interpretation of scripture and tradition over personal views on these issues.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 11:52 AM (EST):

Sister Carey and Father Z have NOT done damage to the churches unity. These LCWR sisters who are promoting a schism within the church. I think promoting non-Catholic teachings is much more damaging to the churches ‘Unity’ than exposing those that would destroy the Church. We can not forget that the Catholic Church belongs to God and no body else can change his teachings that have remained the same for almost 2000 years.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Sep 4, 2012 11:25 AM (EST):

To be fair to the Cardinal. Both sides ceased on what he was not trying to say.

Sister Carey, Father Z. Honestly. Both have done a tremendous amount of damage to the unity in our church. Why does the church hate itself so much?

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 8:55 PM (EST):

Thanks Virginia. I did read the interview. It’s some fine language, but does not fool those who understand what the issues are. Yes, the church needs renewal but not the kind he wants.

May God have mercy on his soul.

Posted by virginia uribe on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 8:44 PM (EST):

to Savvy. I encourage you to read the unedited version of Cardinal Martini’s last interview. Only the edited version appears in this publication. Refer to Nat. Catholic Reporter.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 8:25 PM (EST):

Virginia,

It was Carl Rogers that destroyed the IHM sisters. Please see this.

http://www.mtio.com/articles/aissar74.htm

The church is not 200 years behind, but 2,000 years behind the times, standing with Jesus and not popular opinion.

Posted by virginia uribe on Sunday, Sep 2, 2012 1:30 PM (EST):

Thank you Jim and Ginnyy for your kind words. In the 60’s, I saw how the Vatican and then Cardinal Macintyre destroyed the Immaculate Heart sisters in Los Angeles. Things haven’t changed much in the last 50 years. Today I read the dying words of Cardinal Martini, Archbishop of Milan—” the Church is 200 years out of date.” How tragically true.

Posted by savvy on Saturday, Sep 1, 2012 7:36 PM (EST):

I do not think the commentators understand what the theological issues are and their impact on basic Christology. There is no new Gospel. If you want one start your own religion.

Posted by Ginnyy on Saturday, Sep 1, 2012 6:45 PM (EST):

Thank you too jm for commenting on this article. It is often frustrating to communicate via ‘email’....I think all of us are ‘thinking’ Catholics, trying to understand our times and really giving a thoughtful insight to our soul’s convictions….which I believe is NOT a bad thing! Life is so precious, and such a gift. And thank you virginia uribe for your continuing comments….it takes a hearty soul to keep responding…I wish we could all meet and give each other a hug….I too am with the sisters, and know that our times will prove to be the right direction for the continuation of Christ’s message…..He truly tried to tell us to ‘love one another as ourselves’.

Posted by jm on Saturday, Sep 1, 2012 6:19 PM (EST):

Thank you for truly trying to understand the position of the sisters. This is one of the only balanced piece of coverage of the conference in a conservative Catholic publication.

Thank you again. Myself, I stand with the sisters. The curia should walk a few miles in their shoes.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 10:55 PM (EST):

Good bye Grok and Savvy. This is tiresome. I think all of us have said what we wanted to say. And I still believe that if there is a heaven, we will someday all meet there. And I will be with my loving partner.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 10:12 PM (EST):

“And I hope somewhere, there may be one person who read our exchanges, and that I gave them a voice which they were reluctant to express.”

Reluctant to express? They have spent a generation, inventing their own religion.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 9:12 PM (EST):

Virginia,

There is no such thing as gay marriage, civil or otherwise. You can pretend so.

Vocations are on the rise in communities that do not have aging hippies. The church also thinks in centuries as opposed to what will just work right now.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 8:44 PM (EST):

I think its a good idea for you to go on a gay blog and express your point of view. Beleive me we have heard that over and over again, so it won’t be anything new. And you express your views in public all the time. Why am I on this religious website? Because I applaud what the LCRW is trying to do, and I want them to know I support them. And I hope somewhere, there may be one person who read our exchanges, and that I gave them a voice which they were reluctant to express.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 8:18 PM (EST):

Savvy,
Good point. If Virginia is not religious, why is she on a religions website trying to tell Catholics how to serve God? I will tell you what. I will get on a Gay rights blog and see how understanding they are to my viewpoint. Here on the Catholic website, most are too kind to tell you how evil Gay marriage is, but if I go on a Gay rights website, I am sure they would block me after one or two comments. At this point, I can’t speak my views in public because your kind have been so effective in creating a climate similar to Nazi Germany where one can’t give their views or their company will be sued, they will loose their job, and they will be blackballed in the community.

And know, before you say it, I am not angry, I am just making a obvious point.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 5:12 PM (EST):

savvy your temper is showing. I do not impose my views on anyone. I believe civil marriage should be the same for everyone. Then each church can impose the title sacramental marriage to it if they so desire. As far as definitions of the priesthood, I’ll leave that to you. It seems to have worked out well—vocations dropping,etc.

I have been married for over three decades. I owe the success of our union to the fact that neither of us is very religious.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 4:38 PM (EST):

Virginia,

This is what is known as moral relativism gone mad.

If love means different things for different people, then you have no right to come here and tell the church to accept your views or the LCWR"s views on women priests or gays since they have their own views on love and the priesthood.

You cannot impose your views on them. It’s very arrogant and not Christ-like.

Who are you to define what the priesthood or sacramental marriage is?

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 3:30 PM (EST):

i don’t know if grok and savvy are the same person but you can call me any thing you wish. You didn’t look up the word bigot because if you did you would see what type people fit into that category. And I don’t care what you think of gay marriage—it’s here to stay. And who are you to say my love is wrong? And what is your definition of love? You are very arrogant if you think you know what it means for everyone. Please stop sending me these strange communications. They aare certainly not Christlike.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 2:19 PM (EST):

Virginia,

You are attempting to create new rights that do not exist. There is simply no such thing as gay marriage. You can have a civil wedding, it still won’t be a marriage.

Silencing opponents by calling them names is what gays do to shut down debate.

The 21st century has not abandoned objective thinking or perhaps you want it too.

We think you are worthy of love and intimacy, but we disagree with your definition of love.

Same-sex, acts take bodies designed for heterosexual purposes and use them for the wrong purpose. Nature has a purpose and end.

This turns erotic desire towards itself, rather than towards the other. Love loves the other.

This is not love, but lust.

I do agree this is a search for love, gone wrong.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 1:43 PM (EST):

last comment was meant for savvy. Grok is actually trying to ask sensible questions so i am going to try and answer them. I consider myself a “recovering” Catholic. I went to Catholic grade school, high school and college. When I left college and began a career I discovered other points of view and drifted away from the dogmatic approach to which I had been exposed. I became more spiritual rather than blindly conforming.

No I do not believe in the literal translation of the Bible. I’m not a relativist but I do think that many interpretations are possible. And this is the 21st century so I think we have to take that into consideration.

Now on the issue of homosexuality. Sexual orientation cannot be equated with things like murder and rape which are violations of the law—sexual orientation has to do with the way DNA is wired in your brain. I don’t think you hate homosexuals but it is impossible to separate the person from the act. Unless you think homosexuals are not worthy of love or intimacy. One can certainly be celibate if that is ones choice. But celibacy does not work for everyone.

Yours in friendship

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 1:24 PM (EST):

Grok, Not everyone is a closet homosexual, bu those who oppose equal rights for gay and lesbian people are certainly bigots. Look up the word bigot.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 1:04 PM (EST):

Grok,

Don’t you get it. The church and Bible oppose a number of sins, but only attacking homosexuality gets you branded a heretic or a closet homosexual in the new sexual Orthodoxy.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 12:44 PM (EST):

Virginia,

I apologize if I seemed harsh and seemed to attack you but I didn’t mean it the way it reads. I actually don’t remember if you said you considered yourself a Christian or not but from reading your comments about the Bible, I assume you do, but you are not a Catholic. Is that correct? I still don’t understand how one can base their faith on the Bible, yet ignore portions in it. Are you saying that you believe that some portions were inspired but others were not? Again, I am not trying to be coy, I am asking straight forward questions. I am trying to understand what the reasoning is. Honestly, if I don’t understand the reasoning, it is difficult to debate an issue. I seem to be looking at the Bible from a purely literal way but I don’t know how you perceive it.
I am not asking the questions to make a point, I really want to know the answer.

As far as you comment about people who don’t like homosexual activities being having hidden homosexual desires, all I can say is, I don’t like murder, stealing, or rape, does that mean I really want to kill, steal, and rape? I think we both know that is probably not the case. You keep insinuating that I hate homosexuals. I know that is not true but I do hate the sinful homosexual acts they perform, just as I hate murder. I choose not to watch movies etc where they show murders because I don’t like to see it, even though it is just make believe.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 12:06 PM (EST):

well i think we agree on one thing—public figures are often not what they appear to be.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 11:56 AM (EST):

Virginia,

All people do not wish to do things they disagree with. There is a natural law whether people agree with it or not.

Yes, public figures do tend to put on a persona, this is true regardless of orientation or political affiliation.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 11:34 AM (EST):

Sorry I attributed it to you. But Grok will read it and im sure holds the same sentiments. Comparing abortions to homosexuality is really comparing apples to oranges. Sexual feelings, both homosexual and heterosexual, are often repressed due to a lot of societal factors. This repression often finds its voice in negative pronouncements that distance the sayer from the acts. This is not just my thinking. Read up on issues of human sexuality, and look at our politicians and evangelical pastors. There’s usually something hiding in the closet, whether it be a boy or a girl.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 10:47 AM (EST):

Virginia,

That was Grok and not me. Please do not allude things to me that I have not written. But, since you brought this up.

I will reply with

1. The Bible comes from the church and the church is the correct interpreter of scripture, not individual interpretation. This is also consistent with natural law.

2. Get real! it’s like saying people oppose abortion, because they secretly want to have them.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 10:40 AM (EST):

dear savvy. I have tried to be respectful in all of our exchanges. Therefore I will not respond to your diatribe about homosexuality except to say (1) many people of faith have a totally different interpretation of the bible with regard to the subject, and (2) recent studies from Harvard and the University of Columbia suggest that people who are so negative about homosexuality often have repressed feelings of homosexuality themselves.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Tuesday, Aug 28, 2012 8:35 AM (EST):

Virginia,
I don’t understand what you base your faith on. You know that the Bible itself condemns homosexuality. It isn’t only a teaching of the Church but also of Jesus and the apostles. If you can’t believe in what Jesus and the apostles command, how can you call yourself a Christian. Actually, I don’t remember you claiming you are Christian, so maybe you don’t but none the less, here are some quotes from Jesus and Paul regarding homosexuality:

And at Mark 7:21 to 23 Jesus said ” 21 For it is from within, out of a person’s heart, that evil thoughts come—sexual immorality, theft, murder, 22 adultery, greed, malice, deceit, lewdness, envy, slander, arrogance and folly. 23 All these evils come from inside and defile a person.”

Paul defined this further:
1 Cor. 6:9-10, “Or do you not know that the unrighteous shall not inherit the kingdom of God? Do not be deceived; neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor the covetous, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor swindlers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.”
Rom. 1:26-28, “For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also the men abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error. And just as they did not see fit to acknowledge God any longer, God gave them over to a depraved mind, to do those things which are not proper.”

I don’t see in here anywhere that it says homosexuality is okay as long as they are married. It is wrong no matter what. Jesus never said we will be saved if we are ‘nice’ to people, as some homosexuals are ‘nice’ people. We have to be much more than ‘nice’. As Jesus said, we must, as Mark 12:29 - 31 says:“The most important one,” answered Jesus, “is this: ‘Hear, O Israel: The Lord our God, the Lord is one. Love the Lord your God with all your heart and with all your soul and with all your mind and with all your strength.’ The second is this: ‘Love your neighbor as yourself.’ There is no commandment greater than these.”
Of course to do this we must obey him and promote his teachings. The LCWR has obviously stopped doing that if they don’t support his teachings.

Posted by savvy on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 9:27 PM (EST):

Virginia,

There is nothing new about these ideas. They are a full-reversion back to pre-Christian times and the church that has outlived them is at it’s gate. It’s too bad you won’t be around for the new evangelization in these times.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 9:16 PM (EST):

I just looked at my delete column and see that I have exchanged 25 communications with savvy and grok. Its been fun. My social circle consists of people who feel the same as I do, so to hear the complete opposite side is very interesting. Like I said earlier, I am nearly eighty years old, so I’m not going to be around to see the changes which I feel certain will take place in the Catholic Church in the next few years. A wise philosopher said “you can’t stop an idea once it’s gotten started.”

Posted by savvy on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 8:59 PM (EST):

Forcing people to violate their conscience is the issue. The church did not pick this fight. People can choose where they work. These places were founded by religious orders and not by the government, that needs to stay out of this.

There is no such thing as fake marriage, despite how much you want to pretend.

They can ordain as many fake priests as possible. They still won’t be real priests. Besides the average age of these hippies is 75 and do not have new recruits among young orthodoxy.

Yes, you are right we are not going to agree.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 8:47 PM (EST):

savvy, you and I are never going to agree. If Catholic institutions are going to resist giving out contraceptives because it violates their faith, where is the individual responsibility in this? Women don’t have to accept the contraceptives. Why not leave it up to them? Why does the Church have to enter into this? Not everyone working in these institutions is catholic.

On the issue of marriage, same-sex marriage is inevitable. I happen to be married. And I don’t think anything about me is disordered.

Sisters can support the affordable health care act but they cannot support a law that forces Catholic institutions to violate their teachings. There are many who have thankfully changed their minds on this.

“the idea of women priests?”

Women were never priests. Jesus ordained men as priests to make present his atonement for sin, until he comes again.

“And where is the sacrament that says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and cannot have loving relationships?”

Marriage is between a man and a woman. People are not disordered, certain actions are. Gay marriage is an ontological impossibility. Gays can love each other, but they cannot call it a marriage.

“These aren’t infallible doctrines—they are man made pronouncements that some people rely upon so that they do not have to think outside their box.”

This is merely your opinion. Not the Apostolic faith.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 5:59 PM (EST):

Is there a sacrament that says sisters can’t support the Affordable Health Care Act, or the idea of women priests? And where is the sacrament that says that homosexuals are intrinsically disordered and cannot have loving relationships? These aren’t infallible doctrines—they are man made pronouncements that some people rely upon so that they do not have to think outside their box.

Posted by savvy on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 5:31 PM (EST):

Grok,

I do not see the church negotiating on doctrine that cannot be negotiated. The sacraments were established by God, not man. If someone cannot adapt to them, they should find something else to do.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 3:35 PM (EST):

Grok, I thought you had stopped communicating with me. Let’s just see how this whole thing with the LCRW plays out. I don’t really understand what the terrible things are that the LCRW is alleged to have done—supporting Obama’s Affordable Care Act, calling for women priests, stop demonizing homosexuals? All of these seem reasonable to me and I think to the majority of American Catholics.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 3:23 PM (EST):

I think you right. If the Catholic Church’s teachings are from God’s Holy Spirit, why would the Church need to compromise? That would be like God compromising with us humans. Doesn’t really make a lot of sense. This whole thing is of grave concern to me. I understand that the Church may try to ‘negotiate’ some minor issues that have to do with regulating the LCWR or something else that has no bearing on our beliefs, but this would be to keep them from loosing face, as well as their supporters.

My belief in the Catholic Church hinges on its authority from God. Sadly, if they give into the LCWR and negotiate to change doctrine, my faith would be sorely tried.

Back to the discussion at hand. Why waste time negotiating with the LCWR when their views are completely off the chart? Most of them do not even believe in the theology of the priesthood. This is an attack on the Eucharist. We need to stand firm and tell them that there will be two suns in the sky, before the church compromises.

Posted by savvy on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 1:48 PM (EST):

Virginia,

I am happy being old-fashioned and not relevant just as my saviour was. Now can you go away and stop rambling, since you have nothing valuable to contribute.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 11:40 AM (EST):

Are Savvy and Grok the same person? I thought I had broken up with Grok but now Savvy is responding to my comments. In any case, can’t we all just be friends? I have no answers for your theological statements because I really don’t care about theological assumptions. I just want to live my life and follow the golden rule. I am not bound by strict conformity to the Church because I find that suffocating. But if others disagree, so be it. They have a right to their beliefs and so do I. Now again, I ask, can’t we all just be friends? And can’t we be respectful of each other beliefs and not try to impose our own beliefs on others?

Posted by savvy on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 11:22 AM (EST):

Limbo was a theological proposition, not a doctrine, whose status has not been settled. The fact that the Catechism offers no clear answer is reflective of the fact that the Church has no clear answer to give.

As the ITC states in its document on Limbo, the answer to this question “has not been revealed to us, and the Church teaches and judges only with regard to what has been revealed” (79).

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 10:34 AM (EST):

Grok, I thought we had broken up but I guess you want to continue our friendly exchange. So I guess we will meet in purgatory—unless the Church does away with that like they did limbo.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 27, 2012 8:20 AM (EST):

Boy, it sounds like heaven will be full of a lot of arguing, if we all go to Heaven no matter what we believe. I can certainly see why Purgatory is necessary to purify our thoughts and believes or Heaven won’t be such a nice place to be.

Posted by virginia uribe on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 4:11 PM (EST):

ok savvy. I’ve enjoyed our time together, but it’s time to break up.
You go your way and I’ll go mine. See you in Heaven.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 3:07 PM (EST):

Virginia,

I am not the who started attacking others over being angry at women, wanting to oppress them blah, blah.

Posted by virginia uribe on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 2:39 PM (EST):

Oh come on Savvy, can’t we all just get along? We’ll all meet in Heaven some day.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 2:17 PM (EST):

Virginia,

I find nothing bright or best about relativists who lack common sense. The church is not swayed by popularity polls.

Posted by virginia uribe on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 2:03 PM (EST):

I only wish we could leave politics out of sacramental theology. That is an admonition you should tell the Church hierarchy when they intrude on women’s health issues. Fortunately many American Catholics have learned to disregard the ramblings of church officials and to seek their God in their own ways. Let the Vatican wring its hands as they continue to lose the best and the brightest. Like I said earlier, we will all meet in Heaven someday when these differences won’t matter.

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 1:19 PM (EST):

I am not a feminist or a male chauvinist. Just a woman who loves the eternal son of God. Why can’t people leave their politics out of sacramental theology.

Posted by Virginia uribe. on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 11:43 AM (EST):

I refer to my earlier comment that we will all meet one day in heaven—feminists and male chauvinists aLike. I wll see you there joe and grok and savvy

Posted by savvy on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 11:19 AM (EST):

Holy Orders is a sacrament. Sacraments are natural signs that relate to events in salvation history. I do not see how we can get around this, without re-writing salvation history itself.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 5:37 AM (EST):

Good points Joe. Not only did Jesus pick 12 men for apostles, but he had great women who he could have chosen as apostles to, non greater than Mary who was without sin. What a better choice than 12 sinful men. There are other women in the Bible who didn’t run away when Jesus was crucified and stayed with him during his death. This while his apostles were hiding in fear. Why didn’t Jesus make these courageous women apostles. We don’t know. We know that despite all that, Jesus saw to it that his apostles were all men and their successors on Earth were all men. We don’t necessarily know why but God has a reason for everything he does, and who are we to question his wisdom and plan. (Maybe how off track the LCWR has gone is an example of what happens to religious organizations when women are in charge. Who knows?)

Posted by Joe on Sunday, Aug 26, 2012 1:11 AM (EST):

I believe that many simply can no longer recognize sin—therefore leave it to their consciences to guide them and easily fall into the trap of siding with their politics rather than accepting Church teaching. It is sinful to openly accept and support these sins of our day, and these sins need to be confessed.

Jesus chose 12 men as Apostles—He must of had his reasons. Do we feel deep down in our souls that he was wrong for doing this? If the answer is yes, then do we proclaim to know more than and question the wisdom of the very God who created each us? Isn’t that about as far away from God as one can get? The devil tried to cause revolt to God and look what happened to him.

Heaven is a place for only the souls that follow Jesus, that choose the spirit over the flesh and do not question the wisdom of God. It is a Holy place—not based on any sins of the flesh—only spiritual works and supporting Church teaching throughout ones life. Differences don’t exist in heaven because only those that have chosen to stand against any and all forms of sin no matter how difficult during their lives are there. Or, those that bear the cross of these temptations daily and choose to resist them. And the Catholic Church in Rome defines what sin is and is not - not us.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 8:49 PM (EST):

I wish you the best too. I think we will meet in heaven when these differences won’t exist.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 8:32 PM (EST):

Virginia,

If you do not understand theological issues, then maybe you should not comment on them.

An informed conscience is based on examining the evidence. Refusal to do so, because God talks to you as these women claim, is submitting to blind faith and not reason.

I do wish you the best. Personal opinions just cannot be declared binding on the universal church.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 7:59 PM (EST):

Dear Savvy,

Call me arrogant but I don’t understand what you are saying. I have no private revelation, only a conscience formed by my interactions with the world. You have your way of worshiping the sacraments and I have mine.
That distinction is the basis of freedom. I have every confidence that if I live my life according to my interpretation of the sacraments, it will be seen by God as a good life.

Posted by savvy on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 7:40 PM (EST):

Virginia,

Political language cannot explain theology. Scripture itself warns against private revelation elevated to the status of doctrine. Private revelation held in opposition to the correct interpretation of scripture and tradition, is the recipe for disaster and division. You might as well start your own religion.

The sacraments are also the same for everybody, you adapt to them. Forcing them to adapt to you is forcing God to worship you. This is not inclusive, it’s arrogantly exclusive.

Posted by virginia uribe on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 10:30 AM (EST):

I think we can agree to disagree. I am nearly eighty years old, so I probably won’t live to see the Catholic Church crushed under its own weight. It’s interesting to think about what the American church will look like in 50 yearss—women priests, homosexuals being accepted-one can only hope.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Tuesday, Aug 21, 2012 8:45 AM (EST):

Again, how can you say that I see women as subservient to men. Many of the strongest people I have known, are women. BUT, just because men are equal to women, doesn’t mean men can have babies, does it. Likewise, just because women are equal to men, doesn’t allow them to change Gods choice of using men to be priests and bishops in his Church. Why didn’t God allow men to have babies? Well I can think of a few good reasons, but I will leave them unsaid because it would make men look bad.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 5:52 PM (EST):

Yes you have had women in your life, but you still see them as subservient to men. In other words, they should remain in their place. For my part, I don’t hate men—I just don’t see them as being better than women. I agree that there is no reason to continue these exchanges. You are you, and I am me. I think we will both meet in heaven some day.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 3:23 PM (EST):

Actually, I am not angry at women at all. My boss is a woman and she is great to work for. My grandmother was a business woman in a Wisconsin and owned the largest grocery store, hardware store, implement dealer, and automobile dealership in the whole county. She raised us kids to respect women, BUT she taught us to never doubt the Catholic church or its teachings.

Why do you hate men? You jump to conclusions based on my respect for God and his religion on Earth. If I argue with someone and they happen to be a man, does that mean I hate men. If I argue with a man about politics, does that mean I hate men. If I argue with the LCWR because they try to question the teachings of the Catholic church when it comes to homosexuality and priests marrying, how does that make me hate women.

I can see that I am wasting my time debating with you since we arn’t even debating the same point.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 2:59 PM (EST):

To answer your question, Grok, I don’t belong to any formal religion, Catholic or otherwise. Now you should answer mine—why are you so angry at women? I has been interesting communicating with you.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 2:52 PM (EST):

I am not any more angry than Jesus Christ when he spoke against the pharisees for setting up their faith based on their ‘own terms’. In effect you are trying to destroy what God and Christ built up over the last 2000 years, to make it match your ideal. Why? You don’t seem to understand that the Catholic church is ruled by God. You can’t change God’s mind. If you don’t believe it is ruled by God, then why do you belong to it. If it isn’t ruled by God, start a religion that you think is ruled by God.

And you still haven’t answered my question. Why do you belong to a religion you don’t believe in?

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 2:13 PM (EST):

Grok, why are you so angry at women who want their rightful place in the church? As for me, I gave up being a titular Catholic years ago. That set me free to have a connection with Jesus Christ on my own terms.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 1:57 PM (EST):

If you can’t understand why Jesus chose 11 men to rule his early church, and why Jesus gave those men the power to make the ‘rules’, and why Jesus gave them Holy Spirit to guide his church such that it would last 2000 years without changes to its core teachings, there really is no need to go any further. All I see here from supporters of the LCWR is this worldly humanistic attitude of ‘we’ know better than the ones God put in charge. The Church was NEVER a democracy. God didn’t give Adam and Eve a vote in the rules. But he did give human kind the option to make their own gods and follow them to destruction.

Nobody here who supports the LCWR has yet answer me as to why you are Catholic. You don’t believe the Pope and his power, you don’t believe in many Catholic teachings, you don’t believe in Apostolic succession. You have 35,000 protestant churches to choose from, I am sure one of them matches your ideal.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 1:23 PM (EST):

Greg, could you please tell me what the matriarchal biases are? I think your comment suggest that women who want an equal voice in the church and and not always submissive to the Church hierarchy are examples of matriarchal biases. Unfortunately the possibility of individual conscience has been replaced by the administrative reality of the Magisterium—that is the papal bureaucracy.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 12:59 PM (EST):

If the LCWR did indeed follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and not the matriarchal biases of their leaders, there wouldn’t be any problem at all.

Posted by virginia uribe on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 10:35 AM (EST):

If the Catholic Church did indeed follow the teachings of Jesus Christ and not the patriarchal biases of their leaders, there wouldn’t be any problem at all.

Posted by Rayg on Monday, Aug 20, 2012 10:23 AM (EST):

There can be only one path for the Catholic Church and that is being faithful to the teachings of Jesus Christ. There is no other where our salvation comes from, certainly not any New Age approach.

Regardless of ‘how nice’ the sisters may appear to be, they have chosen to follow their own teachings and not those of Vatican II.

Posted by Virginia Hill on Saturday, Aug 18, 2012 7:09 PM (EST):

The Vatican has always had the luxury of ‘moving in centuries’ when a change is imminent - not any longer. And I believe it is due in part to the instant communication that is available to day (this certainly is an ‘evolutionary event’ in our human history), and also to education and understanding the development of man through science - which is a gift from God. Each of us has a gift of life in a certain time in history and our obligation to Christ is to live it as best we can with His love and guidance. That guidance comes through our organization and also through the Holy Spirit. The Holy Spirit comes not just to the magisterium of our church, but to each of us. I believe the Holy Spirit is moving through our time through the LCWR. Questions and dialogue are not dissent, they help all of us grow.

Posted by virginia uribe on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 7:08 PM (EST):

Relevant and irrelevant are not connected to the age of the membership. Rather the terms refer to forward vision. Each of us can decide if we want the Church to look to the future or if we want the Church to remain at a standstill. I don’t see why moving forward and being Christian can’t coexist. If push comes to shove, it will not be the LCWR that is left behind.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 2:31 PM (EST):

Then according to you, the Catholic church should follow the teachings of Barbara Marx Hubbard rather than the teachings of Jesus Christ and the Bible.

By relevant you mean to follow the example of the LCWR member groups and have no growth, die off slowly with the existing membership (whose average age is 74), and abandon true Christianity.

By not irrelevant you mean those traditional orders that don’t belong to the LCWR and have great membership growth, have average ages of about 28 (like in the Dominican Sisters of Mary) and adhering to true Christianity.

Posted by virginia uribe on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 1:09 PM (EST):

Unlike most of the letters, I speak in support of these wonderful and visionary sisters. They are following the principles laid out by Pope John 23rd, and why there is such negative feelings about this is beyond me.
It seems to me that there are two paths for the Catholic Church—be relevant or be irrelevant. The sisters have chosen the first path. As individuals, we can choose either.

Posted by mkc on Friday, Aug 17, 2012 8:40 AM (EST):

Gil,

It is never too late for someone to repent and turn away from sin. The Church has initiated this doctrinal assessment for the good of the nuns as much as for the good of the rest of the Church. Even though, as you say, these communities will be gone in 20 years, it is not too late to save their souls.

Posted by rod larocque on Thursday, Aug 16, 2012 8:38 AM (EST):

I don’t understand why this has taken the Vatican so long?
I guess they don’t act until it is almost too late.

Posted by John Hinshaw on Wednesday, Aug 15, 2012 10:12 AM (EST):

Yes. Sadly, the Sisters disdain for the Church’s foundational Doctrines closely reflect the zeitgeist and too many of the laity. The Church has awakened to the need to re-catechize and re-convert our own members. Leaving aside who is to blame for these generations of untaught laity, the challenge is being picked up as the Church moves forward in the new millenium. The Sisters are indicating in very strong measure that they are not down for this struggle. They prefer to remain where they are. That is why the Church is making it clear that the LCWR may be left behind.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Wednesday, Aug 15, 2012 9:03 AM (EST):

Satanist use contemplative prayer, silence, ritual, song, and faith sharing, but they still aren’t worshiping the TRUE God. This reminds me of Mark 13:5 & 6 which says “5 And Jesus began to say to them, “See to it that no one misleads you. 6 Many will come in My name, saying, ‘ I am He!’ and will mislead many.”. Another scripture that that I find helpful to me is in Proverbs 3:5 which says ‘Trust in the LORD with all your heart And do not lean on your own understanding.’ What we can rely on is the Church Jesus set up 2000 years ago. That is why I will listen to the priest, then compare what he teaches with that of the Magisterium of the Church. Somehow, through good Popes and bad, the main teachings of the Church have never been changed to fit our own desires or beliefs. Jesus has protected his Church through 2000 years and just because these woman rely on your ‘own understanding’ about what the Church should do, she will never change.

Posted by Sam on Tuesday, Aug 14, 2012 9:12 PM (EST):

What is not Catholic about contemplative prayer, silence, ritual, song, and faith sharing which was all part of the prayer each morning at LCWR? All wad grounded in prayer..who has the right to judge that this is not Catholic???

Posted by D Paul on Tuesday, Aug 14, 2012 4:21 PM (EST):

It is all about Teihard de Chardin and not Saul of Tarsus.

Posted by Captain America on Tuesday, Aug 14, 2012 2:37 PM (EST):

I agree with Nick above: the LCWR leadership and members NEED our prayers.

Posted by Pete on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 1:50 PM (EST):

Sister Rebecca Ann told us that when she attended the LCWR board meeting in May, members were shown thousands of letters of support for LCWR from all over the world. She said that those affirmations were wonderful, but most “amazing” was “the solidarity” that the letter writers understood “a tension that came in recognizing the voice of God within themselves and within their life context and how that is put next to regulations, policy, worldviews that may not necessarily speak to them in that context.”

I have noticed this over and over again in the coverage of this story. That the sisters seem to be greatly affected by the idea that they are popular. That somehow knowing others feel the same way they do validates their decisions. Unfortunately they seem to have become so immersed in the world they don’t remember that the Kingdom and their King is not of this world.

Posted by Nick on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 12:30 PM (EST):

The situation is serious.
LCWR needs our prayers.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 10:48 AM (EST):

Gil,

I am saddened by the festering of this type of wrong thinking among some in religious life for many years as well. But we don’t know why God does things the way he does. Perhaps it is to draw out those who would destroy the church, so they are exposed and can be dealt with in his own way. Look how long it took before Jesus came to earth to bring back his people to a pure form of worship. How long did the Jews go on worshiping in a way unacceptable to God? We need to be patient and faithful to God and his church. We can also try to influence other Catholics so they too don’t becoming drawn into these forms of false teaching.

Posted by Grok Hadrian on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 10:26 AM (EST):

Yes, Christopher Cleveland, I agree that this all is very disconcerting. I hope you find an order that still follows the true Catholic faith. I think the problem is orthodox orders are now overwelmed with applicants. I know we just had a FSSP priest (very orthodox) ordained who had to be close to 60 years old.

I myself recently returned to the Catholic church after 30 years of wandering. I left after becoming discouraged by the lack of reverence for God and his Church by two ‘youth’ leader / priests at our Parish. They told me that prayer doesn’t work and instead used hypnosis to help us give up ‘bad habits’ (sinful acts). Relying on these men for my spirituality, destroyed it.

Thankfully I now attend a nice Catholic Church with two FSSP priests. Very spiritual men who have helped me regain my relationship with God.

Be thankful that God has protected you by NOT allowing you to be drawn into an order that is not Orthodox and may somehow weaken your spirituality.

I will pray for you. That you may be blessed with a fine vocation with an orthodox order. God Bless your efforts.

Posted by Gil on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 9:26 AM (EST):

I find it interesting that the bishops have only now started addressing the issue of these communities. I have lived near one of these “Catholic” women’s convents for more than 30 years. Anyone who was paying attention knew they were not really Catholic. Their daily “Mass” is almost unrecognizable. My wife refused to take communion the last time we attended, some 7 or so years ago, because she felt like she would be in danger of sinning. They have lost all sense of devotional prayer. No Rosary, no adoration. They do not stand up for the most pressing social issues. My kids and I were part of a prolife float in the local parade. As we walked past the convent, only one nun of dozens cheered for us. The rest sat uncomfortably and looked away.

Our local community is like many others: no new vocations (except the occasionally middle-aged woman who is looking for stability in life), and consolidation of geriatric facilities with other regional convents.

So the question is: “Why now?” These communities will be essentially gone in 20 more years. I am sure the bishops have their reasons for addressing the problem now. I would like to understand them.

Posted by dontex on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 5:49 AM (EST):

Perhaps this is pointing out the obvious, but the Sisters of Mother Theresa’s order spend their daily life tending to the “marginalized” - and yet these Sisters find time for daily Mass and adoration of the Blessed Sacrament (and I suspect the Liturgy of the Hours).
Would it be asking too much for the LCWR Sisters to make a few changes and become somewhat more like Mother Theresa’a Sisters? The LCWR Sisters might be surprised at the changes in attitude that could from this plan.

Posted by Barbara Ann Jensen on Monday, Aug 13, 2012 2:02 AM (EST):

I pray for these sisters who are clearly in a precarious place regarding their faith. It is so obvious that they are very misled and have been so for over 40 years. Only in union with Christ can anyone or any organization bear fruit; Christ’s Church flows from His Heart and He Himself was obedient to death on a Cross. Can His Brides do what His Vicar asks? I hope that these women do not find out the hard way that they need to be subservient to Rome. ‘Non serviam’ is the devil’s way.

Posted by Joe on Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 7:13 PM (EST):

From the announcement of CDF’s decision and the LCWR convention there as been a great deal of hype. It seemed that the sisters were not going to accept the decision and there was a great deal of chatter about the probability that the LCWR would give up canonical recognition. In the end it seems to have been more or less empty threats. The sisters have decided to continue to dialogue with the Vatican. Apparently the sisters of the LCWR are not willing to give up offical recognition. It seems to me that a lot of negative feelings were let loose all over the media but that the final decision was much more low key. I true hope and pray that the Conference will now get down to the serious business of conversion. Not the conversion of everyone else but the conversion of the members of the Conference itself. Everyone of us is called to daily conversion — of dying to ourselves (and our agendas) so that the life of Christ Jesus can flourish in us.

I am truly greatful to you for your excellent coverage and insights regarding the LCWR debacle. Unfortunately, I see little room for hope in the generic sense though all things are possible with God.
It has been especially interesting to follow this story as a man discerning a vocation to Religious Life as a Brother.
I mentioned my distress and concern over the LCWR stance against the Vatican to my Vocation Director and now he wants to “have a conversation about this” which I fear is going to be pro LCWR.
What I don’t understand is why no media campaign, silent vigils, etc. were organized by traditional/orthodox Catholics?
Why wasn’t the CMSW more vocal and public with the media in defense of the mandate and to promote their vision of Religious Life.
It seems like a missed opportunity as most of the general public thinks
this is about all nuns in general.
I am 43 and have found it very difficult to find an orthodox order that
doesn’t consider me too old. Please pray that things go well with the Community with which I am in discernment. I can tell you honestly, based on my experience, that if I were more liberal and in the LCWR “mold” many more men’s communities would have been open to my sense of vocation. Once they discover my traditional beliefs in phone conversations, I shortly receive a letter about my age being a disqualifier.
So much of this “new type of Religious” has affected many men’s orders as well.
I find myself in new found sympathy for the SSPX and hope they will become regularized with the Vatican. They may be the kind of strong medicine our beloved Church needs in this era of fragmenting postmodernism.

Posted by Mary Petitti on Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 2:58 PM (EST):

I just finished reading ” Come Be My Light”, the Letters of Mother Teresa. There is such a contrast between how Mother (who was very impatient about the time it was taking to get started with her mission that she felt was coming from God) and the LCWR leadership. She always was obedient to the Church’s direction. Even though it was hard for her, she felt this was God’s plan and her obedience was her test. Look at what her obedience and prayer built.

Posted by Mrs Z on Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 12:54 PM (EST):

Thank you for your reflections. They were very kind and I enjoyed reading them. It’s wonderful that you were able to capture the truth of this unfortunate situation and do it without any of the inflammatory language that is so common when speaking about these nuns. They truly need us to pray that their eyes are opened and their hearts are led back to a deeper communion with Christ and His Church.

Posted by enness on Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 11:34 AM (EST):

Sigh…God bless you Ann, you’re much more gentle than I would have been (clearly).

Posted by enness on Sunday, Aug 12, 2012 11:20 AM (EST):

Oh, this is truly sad. I have seen nothing in this whole series to redeem them from the charges.
-
I would caution, of course they were welcoming and gracious. While this may be perfectly normal for them, it is also true that it’s easy to be ingratiating when one has something to prove.
-
Why, why, with the richness of Catholic spirituality, would nuns need to dabble with generic stuff that cannot even be properly understood as prayer? What is so appealing about it? And at the risk of pointing out the obvious, they describe the Church as if it were a secular government. The Church does not have “policies” and “regulations,” it has doctrines. If the “voice of God” seems to be saying something contrary to the Church’s established teaching, one thing is certain, it is not really the voice of God! Gee, who would have thought life as a Catholic was difficult? I thought it was supposed to be easy…

Join the Discussion

We encourage a lively and honest discussion of our content. We ask that charity guide your words.
By submitting this form, you are agreeing to our discussion guidelines.
Comments are published at our discretion. We won’t publish comments that lack charity, are off topic, or are more than 400 words.
Thank you for keeping this forum thoughtful and respectful.

Name:

Email:

Write your comment:

Please enter the word you see in the image below:

Notify me of follow-up comments.

Comments are no longer being accepted on this article.

About Guest Blogger/Ann Carey

Ann Carey is a veteran journalist who has written hundreds of articles for many prestigious Catholic publications during her 31-year career in the Catholic press. She is a member of the Catholic Press Association and has won awards for news and feature writing, as well as investigative reporting. Her specialty is women religious, and she is working on a new, updated edition of her book, Sisters in Crisis: The Tragic Unraveling of Women’s Religious Communities, to be published by Ignatius Press. She and her husband live in Indiana and are the parents of three grown children.